Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I certainly do. I share deeply the views of the Senator from Virginia. It does seem to me that we should have learned a lesson from the period of World War II. It took a terrible attack upon Pearl Harbor to bring us to the point where we were willing to enter that war. Our Nation was part of the group trying to brush Hitler under the rug, thinking somehow or another this would go away. But President Roosevelt, to his great credit, had the courage to stand up and try to find ways to help those who were willing to stand in Hitler's way. Now is the time to recognize that once a person becomes President of the United States and becomes Commander in Chief, there is an awesome responsibility, and particularly after the events of September 11 of last year, we have to recognize that as Commander in Chief he needs our support. Politics in my mind has always stopped at the water's edge. We ought to be united behind our President when he is dealing with problems such as Saddam Hussein. We certainly ought to be united in terms of voicing the sentiment that the United Nations must stand up and be counted this time. Sixteen times. How many times does he have to go to the well before he finds out that he must comply with these U.N. mandates? There is enough evidence out there now that Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with the mandates that give rise to a world coalition to contain him. We thought we already had. We have our Coast Guard stopping ships going into the station. We have pilots flying over the two no-fly zones every day. And on the ground he has palaces all over the place and will not let anyone know what is in them.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. The real problem is until the members of the United Nations know we mean business, they are not going to come and join a coalition. It takes money, it takes time, it takes commitment, it takes internal debates like this in every democracy. But the necessity is there for us to tell the world we are ready. We are ready to bring an end to this man's deceitful action against the world. But until we do, who is going to join a coalition until they know the superpower is really in there? We have to put our money on the table first. We have to put our hand out there to anyone who is ready to join this coalition, to say: We are there. Are you with us or not? If you are not, then you are not part of history, as far as I am concerned. History will read the nations who stood together and stopped Saddam Hussein, saved the world, as well as those who joined with us in World War II saved the world. I think this threat is even worse, though, than the one we faced. It is the most awesome thing possible, the more I learn about these weapons he has, weapons of mass destruction that can be deployed and used in so many ways. To think a person is there who has been willing to use them against Iran, against his own people, the Kurds. I still believe some of the problems our people had in the Persian Gulf war came from his testing some of those weapons. There is no question in my mind.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator and I are of another generation. There is no question about that. I never thought I would live to see the day I would say there is no question in my mind this is a greater threat than what we faced when we were young. But we had time. There was time to adjust. Even in the Persian Gulf war, we had time to take the actions that were necessary to evict Saddam Hussein's likes from Kuwait. But now it is not a matter of time. I am convinced the clock is ticking on the world as far as this threat is concerned. These are weapons of mass destruction. Even one of them should lead a person to have some fear. The only thing we can do is to join together with the world. Someone said to me the other day we can't do it alone. Whoever said that is absolutely right. This is not something one nation can do alone. But this is something where one nation can lead. That is what is happening right now. We must lead. We must form this coalition, and we must convince the U.N. to be a part of that coalition and to be firm. And this time--this time, to know either they enforce those mandates that come from the U.N., or we will lead the world to enforce them. It must be done.

Mr. STEVENS. In writing. He is shooting missiles at them every day. It is high time we did away with that concept that the area of Baghdad is off limits. If they down an airplane, I don't think there is any question in the world we should declare war against them because he has violated the United Nations agreement he entered into himself. The idea of allowing him to shoot at pilots day in and day out with impunity is totally beyond my comprehension.

Mr. STEVENS. I have spoken to those young pilots at the Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia and at our offices in Kuwait and even in London. Many of our own pilots who flew those missions day in and day out did not reenlist. They just got tired of the stress of flying over the no-fly zone and being shot at daily by missiles that are capable of downing their aircraft. Thank God we have some of the systems to defend against those missiles, but the U.N. has absolutely had blinders on. They have not even seen that. Both British and American pilots are shot at daily by this person. Why? Because they are flying over no-fly zones. They have every right under international law to be there because Saddam Hussein agreed they could be there.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I think this is one of the most serious issues I have ever addressed on this floor, and I thank Lindsay Hayes and Karina Waller, who are with me today, for their help in preparing this statement. There are few of us still around who lived through events which led to World War II. I was in high school, as a matter of fact, and I studied Hitler's actions month after month in history class. I vividly remember watching the world appease Hitler while he pursued an aggressive military policy aimed at dominating the world. The current situation reminds me of the agreements we studied in high school which were made after World War I. Hitler just waved them away. When Hitler flaunted the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty, France and Britain did nothing to enforce it. When Hitler occupied the Rhineland and the Anschluss in Austria, no nation tried to stop him. Instead, the world repeatedly gave into an obnoxious, aggressive leader to avoid war. When I was a senior in high school many of my friends left school to enlist. I left Oregon State College in December of 1942. Only seven of us in the Senate today served during World War II, but as one who fought in China, the ``Forgotten War,'' I see the next Hitler in Saddam Hussein. Senator Warner, Senator Inouye, Sam Nunn, and I also experienced the horror of the gulf war firsthand. In 1991, in an Israeli defense conference room we were told a Scud had been fired at Tel Aviv, which is where we were, and it could be carrying chemical or biological agents. Gas Masks were passed around the room and we waited about 20 minutes before being told that the Scud had fallen. The next morning we went to locate the Scud and found that it had been grazed by a Patriot missile. It had hit an apartment complex. This was quite an interesting experience to Senator Inouye and I because several years before this incident Senator Dan Inouye and I had demanded that the anti-aircraft Patriot be modified to become an anti- missile system, and we were in Israel witnessing the use of that Patriot system. Over 20 years ago, the Israelis saved the world a great deal of pain when they destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor. That action delayed an Iraqi bomb by at least 15 years, and that raid also made Hussein more cautious. Today he has spread out and carefully concealed his military- weapons infrastructure to make destruction of those weapons more difficult. We seek peace. We abhor war. We work to assure our military capacity is second to none because we believe in this new world no nation has time to re-arm. We must be ready instantly to defend our interests at home and abroad or perish. Our President is right to shake Hussien's cage. The Middle East is a tinder box, but only one nation has the ability to ignite the entire world, and that is Iraq. Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to expand beyond his borders again and he cannot continue developing weapons of mass destruction. President Bush has an important role as the leader of the free world as he repeatedly states there is a menace in Iraq and it is growing. This is the most serious situation we have faced since World War II. Since the end of the Persian Gulf war, our forces have been enforcing the United Nation's mandate that there should be two no-fly zones in Iraq. Our planes fly patrols for the United Nations, over those no-fly zones daily and have been shot at almost every day. We cannot allow this continued risk to the lives of our own pilots. The threat of weapons of mass destruction was real during the Persian Gulf war. It is even more real today. Five years ago, weapons inspectors were forced out of Iraq. Based on classified briefings I have received I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein has used this opportunity to expand his weapons program. Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions canisters. It has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets previously used for delivering nerve agents or 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. When inspectors left Iraq in 1998, the regime was capable of resuming bacterial warfare agent production within weeks. Hussein has had time to produce stockpiles of anthrax and other agents, including smallpox, and he is not afraid to use these weapons. He has used weapons of mass destruction against Iranians, against his own people, and, I believe, against some of our military in the gulf war. When Hussein begins blackmailing his neighbors and using his resources, The world will face an impossible situation. If Hussein's weapons program continues unchecked our allies--his neighbors--face an unconventional threat of immense proportions--a threat more horrible than all Hitler's legions. The President needs our support to form a coalition that can confront this crisis. We must grant President Bush the same powers that Congress has given his predecessors. We must pass this resolution now or our children, or our grandchildren, are going to shed a monstrous amount of blood to deal with this threat in the future. Hussein will use these weapons if he is not stopped now. He will become a Hitler. He will continue as Hitler started--dominating one country after another. With the weapons he has, he need only to threaten their use, or to use them as he did in Iran. Then ours will be a terrible dilemma: how does the world deal with a madman who has weapons against which the world cannot defend? If any Senator has doubts about this resolution, I ask them to ask themselves this question: is Saddam Hussein really ready to become part of the family of nations again? Can anyone on this Senator floor answer that question ``Yes''? The U.N. has told Hussein that he must disarm 16 times. Sixteen times he has defied that body. He has lied. He has not once complied. Between 1991 and 1998, Iraq practiced a series of deceitful tactics designed to prevent U.N. inspectors from completing inspections. The same course of action will bring the same results. As I have traveled at home, I am often asked ``How do we know Hussein is so bad?'' Our intelligence agencies have developed an enormous amount of evidence on his activities, his use of weapons of mass destruction, and his lies and deceptions. Unfortunately, this information is mostly classified to protect sources and methods by which the information was acquired. As one of the Senate who is briefed on a regular basis I believe our intelligence agencies understand the nature of the threat Iraq poses. However, while it is likely that Iraq has large amounts of biological and chemical weapons, our knowledge of their ability to deliver those agents against long-range targets outside of Iraq is limited. To assure the formation of a coalition to contain Hussein, we must pass this resolution. The President must have this authority. We want the U.N. to demand full inspections before this threat becomes even greater. This Congressional authorization to use force if necessary will send a message to the United Nations: Congress is united. We stand behind our Commander in Chief. In 1945 the world community gathered together to denounce the atrocities committed by Hitler and form the United Nations. That action made a commitment to protect succeeding generations from the scourge of war and promised such horrors would never again take place. Now it is incumbent upon the United National to fulfill that promise. The U.N. must send a message that the international community will not tolerate regimes which commit genocide against their own people, employ weapons of mass destruction against other countries, and harbor terrorists. The world community must confront this Iraqi threat. This resolution gives the President the support he needs to convince the U.N. to join in building that coalition. United States policy must be clear. Should the United Nations fail to live up to its promise, this resolution authorizes the President to take the necessary steps to protect the United States and ensure the stability of the world community. With this authority the President may state clearly to members of other nations: Are you with us? Do you support our determination to face this threat now? We are not alone, Great Britain and other nations are already supporting our President. A new history of international courage can be written now. This generation need not endure a long and bloody world war if our leaders stand together and state clearly: the world will not condone defiance and deception, we will not allow a dictator to rise from the ashes of defeat to menace the world with awesome weapons. I support our Commander in Chief. I shall vote for the administration's bipartisan resolution. Our Nation is the last real superpower. The burden of that status is that every nation in the world must know we will use our military force, if necessary, to prevent tyrants from acquiring and using weapons of annihilation. It is my belief that with this authority President Bush may prove that determination to the United Nations and there will be a coalition that will bring peace through strength to the Middle East.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in an era when courtly manners are seldom observed or practiced, my friend Jesse Helms has embodied the spirit of a true southern gentleman. For almost 30 years, Senator Helms has provided a model of gentlemanly bearing for a younger generation that is used to much more casual conduct. His old-fashioned gentility will be sorely missed in these Halls. The two of us have been together a great many long nights in the Senate. Despite his gentle southern drawl, it has never been difficult to figure out where Jesse Helms stands. He has held passionately to his convictions and has worked hard for what he believes are the best interests of the people of our Nation and North Carolina. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms has dealt with international issues of deep importance which have had global impact. As I have worked with others here on defense matters over these long years, there has been no greater patriot for this country on this floor than Jesse Helms. He has always supported the men and women who wear our uniform. He has been a true stalwart in fighting for national defense. Jesse Helms is a tough guy. He hasn't let aches or pains, which have sidelined some folks, stop him from performing his responsibilities as a Senator. When our daughter, Lily, now a senior at Stanford, was a toddler and used to visit the Senate Halls, she could always count on Jesse for a smile and for making her feel special and welcome. She told me she has great memories of those days and Jesse Helms. Like Strom Thurmond, Lily looks on Jesse Helms as one of her uncles, and we are proud of that. Mr. President, saying farewell to my friend that I have known for these three decades is difficult. There aren't many of us left, Jesse. We are going to miss you, and we are going to miss Dot. Dot's happy smile and her energy has been a great support for Jesse, and as we wish him Godspeed, we want to include Dot, too, because they are a team. As they enter this new phase of their lives, we thank them for their dedication and hard work, for the elegant manners they have brought to the Senate, and for all that you have done to earn what we are saying today. You deserve every word I have heard today, Jesse. You are a great friend, a great patriot, and I hate to see you go. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan substitute, and I am here to urge its adoption as the most effective way to create a new Department of Homeland Security to protect our Nation from the threat of terrorism. I take this opportunity to highlight four important provisions of the bipartisan substitute that are significant improvements to the committee-endorsed legislation before the Senate. These provisions address the use of appropriated funds, presidential reorganization authority, and the status of the Coast Guard within the Department. Section 738 of the bipartisan substitute includes the appropriations- related language that the committee endorsed to maintain the appropriate checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches with respect to the use of appropriated funds. It improves on that language by authorizing an appropriation of $160 million, and general transfer authority of $140 million, to begin operating the new Department. Both amounts would be subject to reasonable Congressional oversight and decisions. Section 739 requires the submission of a multi-year spending plan for the Department so that Congress and the American people can fully understand, and support, the magnitude of funds needed to conduct an effective homeland defense. Senator Collins and I authored the Coast Guard language in the bipartisan substitute--Section 761. This language preserves the non- homeland security missions of the Coast Guard and its capabilities to perform those missions. The language also ensures that the Coast Guard Commandant can report directly to the homeland security secretary without being required to report through any other official of the Department. I believe this language improves upon the Committee bill by removing the Coast Guard from the Directorate of Border and Transportation Protection--the new directorate--and by making it a freestanding organization--still the Coast Guard--operating within the department and answering directly to the Secretary. This action ensures that there is no ambiguity about the independent and distinct status of the Coast Guard within the Department, or about the Commandant's direct reporting authority. He will report directly to the Secretary. Finally, Section 734 provides the President with the authority to propose further reorganization plans for the Department of Homeland Security and to have those plans considered by the Congress under expedited procedures. This language guarantees that Congress will play a significant role in deciding any further reorganizations, and that these proposals will be debated and acted upon without delay. I would like to discuss the use of appropriated funds. The improved appropriations related language and reorganization plan language in the bipartisan substitute recognize that the need to establish the new Department can be addressed while still preserving the Constitution, especially with respect to maintaining Congress's ``power of the purse.'' That ``power'' is the primary way Congress holds the executive branch accountable for the use of funds, and it ensures that Congress has a central role in determining how hard-earned tax dollars will be expended. Section 738 of the bipartisan substitute reinforces existing law on how appropriated funds are used and how property is disposed of. It requires congressional approval of any plans to modify or eliminate any of the organizations being transferred to the new Department. Congress must approve, in advance, the reallocation of transferred funds away from their originally intended purposes. Accordingly, the proposed statutory language preserves the statutory and administrative requirements needed to ensure that any funds made available to the new Department are used effectively and efficiently and according to the will of the people as reflected through their elected Senators and Representatives. Our amendment demonstrates that the necessary funding mechanisms and flexibility already exist to enable the new Department of Homeland Security to perform its mission. These procedures are embodied in the appropriations process, which can provide the funds needed for the Department without delay through a combination of new appropriations, supplementals, or reprogramming actions. We already have the opportunity to consider new appropriations to create the Department in several of the funding bills working their way through the congressional process at this very moment. These bills will be considered in some format before September 30 or at least before we recess for the election period. Funds to continue the operations of the organizations transferring to the Department also will be provided in these appropriations measures. The bipartisan substitute underscores the importance of providing in the appropriations process the $160 million in new appropriations and the $140 million in general transfer authority. These allocations total $300 million, which is a very large sum of money. This amount should be more than enough to create the new Department and to provide for any initial staffing, equipment, and other expenses. I pledge to do my very best to provide these amounts in the appropriations process as needed. The bipartisan substitute reaffirms the regular appropriations process and that it will work to allocate the needed start-up funding and to prevent disrupting the ongoing operations of the transferred organizations. With regard to reorganization authority the originally proposed legislation for the Department of Homeland Security would have granted the new Secretary almost unlimited authority to establish, consolidate, alter, or discontinue any organizational units within the Department after giving Congress 90 days notice. Under the Constitution, Congress has the responsibility to appropriate funds by law for the executive branch departments, agencies, and other organizations that have constitutional responsibilities to execute our laws. Congress should not allow the many agencies transferring to the Department to be altered, merged, disbanded, or replaced solely and unilaterally by executive branch fiat. We have the responsibility to ensure that the people's elected Senators and Representatives are part of the process of creating, modifying, or disbanding the organizations that spend the people's hard-earned tax dollars. Congress's constitutional role in our system of Government is to set priorities for the use of appropriated funds and to oversee their use to ensure that these funds are expended effectively and efficiently. The creation of a new and effective Department of Homeland Security is a shared responsibility between the executive and legislative branches. For the Department to be successful, both branches of Government--really each branch of Government--must cooperate with each other. Congress and the executive branch should forge a relationship that is based on the mutual trust and shared compromise that the Framers of the Constitution envisioned in creating a system of checks and balances. Such a relationship is necessary for the effective functioning of the Federal Government. In section 734, the bipartisan substitute preserves Congress's rightful role in this process by requiring that both the Senate and the House of Representatives approve any proposed reorganization plans under expedited procedures. With regard to submission of a multi-year homeland security budget plan, section 739 of the bipartisan substitute requires the submission of a multiyear, homeland security spending plan with each budget request for the new Department, beginning with the fiscal year 2005 request. This section will enable the Congress and the executive branch to fully understand the annual and multi-year funding requirements to make our homeland secure. It will assist us in determining the most appropriate funding levels to protect the American people from terrorist threats. The recommended statutory language requires that the Future Years Homeland Security Program be structured as, and include the same type of information and level of detail as, the Future Years Defense Program required by law to be submitted to Congress by the Department of Defense. We have a section preserving the Coast Guard's mission performance. Finally, section 761 of the bipartisan substitute is highly important language Senator Collins and I authored to maintain the structural and operational integrity of the Coast Guard, the authority of the Commandant, the nonhomeland security missions of the Coast Guard, and the service's capabilities to carry out these missions even as it is transferred to the new Department. In addition to transferring the Coast Guard as an independent, distinct entity reporting directly to the Secretary, the language states that the Secretary may not make any substantial or significant change to any of the non-homeland security missions and capabilities of the Coast Guard without the prior approval by Congress in a subsequent statute. The President may waive this restriction for no more than 90 days upon his declaration and certification to the Congress that a clear, compelling, and immediate state of national emergency exists that justifies such a waiver. The language further directs that the Coast Guard's authorities, functions, assets, organizational structure, units, personnel, and nonhomeland security missions shall be maintained intact and without reduction after the transfer unless the Congress specifies otherwise in subsequent acts. This language does permit the Coast Guard to replace or upgrade any asset with an asset of equivalent or greater capabilities. It also states that Coast Guard missions, functions, personnel, and assets--including ships, aircraft, helicopters, and vehicles--may not be transferred to the operational control of, or be diverted to the principal and continuing use of, any other organization, unit, or entity of the Department except under limited conditions. Upon the transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department, the Commandant shall report directly to the Secretary and not through any other official of the Department. The inspector general of the Department shall annually assess the Coast Guard's performance of all its missions with a particular emphasis on examining the nonhomeland security missions. The detailed results of this assessment shall be provided to Congress annually. None of the conditions in the recommended language shall apply when the Coast Guard operates as a service in the Navy under section 3 of title 14, United States Code. The Coast Guard's nonhomeland security missions--and the service's capabilities to accomplish them--are as vital to the 30 coastal and Great Lakes States as are its homeland security missions and capabilities. No state is better than Alaska for demonstrating the importance of the Coast Guard's nonhomeland security missions. The United States has a coastline of 96,000 miles. Alaska has a coastline of 47,300 miles, or almost 50 percent, of our Nation's total. Alaska's fisheries are a billion dollar industry that delivers food to tables all across America and around the world. We harvested 5 billion pounds of seafood last year. The Coast Guard plays an indispensable role in protecting and supporting this industry, and in promoting the safety of its participants. Just this summer, the Coast Guard dispatched additional assets to the maritime boundary line in the Bering Sea to guard against intrusions by Russian trawlers. The Coast Guard's nonhomeland security missions are marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, living marine resources-- including fisheries law enforcement, marine environmental protection, and ice operations. They all are critical to the well-being of Alaskans, and we rely on the Coast Guard virtually every day for protection and assistance in these mission areas. The service's homeland security missions are ports, waterways and coastal security, drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, defense readiness, and other law enforcement. The language in the bipartisan substitute is intended to assure that the important homeland security priorities of the new Department will not eclipse the Coast Guard's crucial nonhomeland security missions and capabilities. This language modifies the committee provisions to reflect suggestions made by the Commandant and his senior staff after they analyzed the original language at my request. Our additional language allows the Coast Guard to conduct joint operations more effectively with other entities in the Department, to assign a limited number of Coast Guard military members or civilian employees to these entities for liaison, coordination, and operational purposes, and to replace or upgrade assets or change non-homeland security capabilities with equivalent or greater assets or capabilities. With the Bipartisan Substitute, I believe the Coast Guard will be in an even stronger position to carry out both its vital non-homeland security missions and its important homeland security responsibilities. Finally, there have been claims that the improved statutory language I have highlighted today still may restrict the President's flexibility to establish and operate the new Department. It is my understanding that the White House was a key participant in the crafting of the Bipartisan Substitute, and that any significant language was reviewed for acceptability by the President's advisors. The President has stated repeatedly that he supports the language in the Bipartisan Substitute. In his Radio Address to the Nation last Saturday, September 21, the President specifically stated that the Bipartisan Substitute would, and I quote, ``provide the new Secretary of Homeland Security much of the flexibility he needs to move people and resources to meet new threats.'' I ask unanimous request to insert into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the recent statements by the President and his spokesman that strongly endorse the bipartisan substitute. I also ask unanimous request that an explanation of the start-up funding authorized in the bipartisan substitute be inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am sort of humbled to be following my great friend from West Virginia and the statement he has just made. When I came to the Senate 34 years ago, this true southern gentleman was among the first to make me welcome. I came from a fairly new State. Senator Thurmond had already served for 14 years as a Senator when I joined the Senate. He was generous with his time, helping this young Westerner to become familiar with the traditions of the Senate, sharing his knowledge of procedures, and some of the pitfalls, and emphasizing the importance of maintaining a sense of dignity. I soon learned that the gracious Strom Thurmond was extending to me friendship, which is part and parcel of this man. His courtly manners and his helpfulness were legendary even then. Today, all these years after he gave me that first crushing handshake, he remains the dignified, gallant gentleman of whom I became a friend in 1968. He continues to demonstrate the spirit that has given him the courage to beat the odds, overcome obstacles, and deal with some of life's toughest challenges. As he prepares to leave us, after almost a half century of serving the people of South Carolina and our Nation, I just want to take a few moments to look back on the personal relationship I have had with Senator Thurmond. While we share a bond of serving in the military during World War II, Senator Thurmond far surpassed any of my experiences. He landed, as people have already said, on D-day in Normandy. He served in both the European and Pacific theaters. And he earned an astounding 18 decorations, including the Legion of Merit and the Bronze Star for Valor. When my first wife Ann died in a plane crash that I survived, Strom's helping hand was there, ready to assist always. The counsel and support he offered were born from the experience of his own tragedy 8 years earlier, when he lost his wife Jean. While he understood the importance of dealing with my grief, he lobbied me to find a new partner in life, as he had done. When Catherine and I were married, Strom made sure she had a great welcome as the Senate's newest spouse. And when our Lily--now a senior at Stanford, who visited the Senate from time to time when she was a toddler--returns to these halls, she always makes sure to see Uncle Strom. As a matter of fact, there is not a day goes by that Strom does not ask me: How is Lily? And last night, Madam President, Lily, now a senior at Stanford, sent me an e-mail. I would like to read from it. I quote: When I think about some of my earliest memories, I always come back to images in my head of entering the big white Capitol to see you and your friends. Because, of course, I didn't know anything about the important roles of the people I knew or the grandness of the Capitol. What I really remember is going to see friends like ``Uncle Strom'' and running in circles around the patterns of the tiles by the entrance to the floor. I can't think of how many times I saw Strom's familiar face and ran to give him a big hug, hearing his voice calling, ``Lily, look how big you've grown,'' or, ``Miss Lily, you're such a pretty girl!'' Seeing Uncle Strom was always a highlight of my trips to the Capitol, and once I got to know Julie, being with her also made some long nights of political gatherings much more fun! Julie, like her father, is such a generous, caring, and warm person, and I feel lucky to have gotten to know her, Nancy, and Uncle Strom. Madam President, Lily had a great many birthday parties here in the Senate. At that time, I was the whip, the assistant leader, and Uncle Strom was always at the top of her guest list, which she prepared herself. I think we can all testify to Strom's sweet tooth. He never saw a birthday cake or a scoop of ice cream he did not like. I will leave it to others, who will also pay tribute to Strom today, to tell of his many accomplishments. They will note he has many titles in his 100 years: From teacher to coach to superintendent of education; from second lieutenant to general; from attorney at law to judge; and from Governor to Senator. Those titles were all earned through dedication and hard work, and they are hallmarks of his distinguished career. I respect those titles. But there is one that is more important to me than all the others, and that is the title I used first: Friend. We are all the richer for having Strom Thurmond in our midst. To be able to count him as a friend is the greatest privilege of all. So I am here today, Senator Thurmond, to say thank you for your dedication, your patriotism, your generosity of spirit, but, most of all, on a very personal basis, for your friendship. Thank you, Strom. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. May we have order, Mr. President.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I was very proud of the efforts of Alaskans in response to the disaster on September 11 of last year. Although we are thousands of miles from New York, they immediately reacted. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the morning hours of September 11 our nation endured a terrible tragedy. Though thousands of miles from the crash sites, the response from our ``Last Frontier'' was overwhelming. Alaskans rushed to aid the victims of the terrorist attacks. They volunteered rescue dogs and handlers. They waited in line for three hours to donate blood. Some boarded planes and traveled to Ground Zero to aid in the search and rescue efforts. In December, those Alaskans were still there clearing debris. Alaskans who could not travel to the crash sites offered support in other ways. Over 10,000 Alaskans signed two fifty-foot banners bearing the phrase ``Love and Prayers, from the People of Alaska.'' One banner was presented in New York City by Alaskan firefighters. The other now hangs in the Pentagon. Countless Alaskans donated funds to help victims through the economic hardships brought on by the attacks. In Kenai, the Firefighters Association petitioned our state to name a mountain after St. Florian, the patron saint of firefighters, as a tribute to firefighters killed in the World Trade Center. This year, Alaskans once again join the nation in mourning and remembrance. Today, I attended the Pentagon's memorial service, but in my home State. Alaskans will pay tribute to our heroes in their own unique way. Anchorage residents will observe a moment of silence at 8:46 a.m. Emergency responders from across Alaska will gather on Barrow Street in Anchorage and join firefighters and police in a procession. A memorial wall will be erected at Town Square. In Homer, Motzart's ``Requiem'' will be performed as part of a worldwide sequence of performances beginning at the hour of the attack and moving from one time zone to the next. I hope all Alaskans who cannot participate in these events will attend a memorial and prominently display American flags. I am proud of Alaska's efforts to honor and remember the victims of this tragedy. On that fateful morning they gave what Lincoln called the ``last full measure of devotion.'' We honor their memory and their sacrifice.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Shelby and I have discussed this matter and I also believe we should take a close look at using the funds recommended by the Committee solely for the conversion of M113A3 carriers and that we address this matter in conference.

Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Maine is correct that this fund has been established for the distinct purpose of improving our military's ability to respond to chemical and biological warfare threats. It is the intent of this committee to see that the funds provided are wisely spent. I would say to the Senator from Maine that a program that has been supported by this committee in the past and is nearing completion should be appropriately considered for funding to ensure that the technologies are funded to completion, provided the technologies will enhance our ability to protect or deter a chemical and biological attack. To withhold funding for a promising, multi-year program just as it is achieving documented results would, in my view, be wasteful.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas started his comments about this subject with the phrase ``if'' we need these planes. That is the point of departure, as far as I am concerned, from those who oppose what we have done to start leasing planes. The tankers that we are replacing in the lease program, the 767s, have reached over 42 years of age. Senator Inouye and I have talked to pilots throughout the world who are flying our planes, and we found that, to a great extent, these planes are spending more time in the depot for maintenance than they are spending flying. The cost of maintaining a plane that old is irrelevant to the subject of what we are spending on these new planes. That doesn't figure in on the CBO. If you save money from maintaining a 42-year-old airplane, that doesn't count toward what it costs you to lease a plane to take its place. Now, we have an unquestioned need for these planes. As I said last night, I cannot imagine that, in the time when I was an Army and Air Corps pilot, anyone would have dared offer me a 1902 plane to fly in World War II. But that is equal to what we are doing now. We are not only offering it, we are forcing our people to fly planes that are, for the most part, older than the pilots who are flying them. It is costing us more to maintain them than the planes are worth. It is because of the failure of the Congress to face up to the problems of replacing our aging systems that we face this tremendous bow-wave of costs in front of us. We are not able to lease combat equipment. We don't seek to lease combat equipment, but we do seek to lease those types of systems that are available in the competitive market and for which there will be a market at the end of the lease. I envision that we will go away from the point of having to spend dollars and dollars and dollars to maintain old planes to the point where we will turn these planes back after not more than 10 years, and then we will buy the next generation. This generation will go out into the general aviation sector of the world, and we will have a value. That value is not calculated in these systems either because they just assume we will keep leasing them, I guess, and envision us continuing to lease these planes until they, too, are 40 years old. As a practical matter, we have faced this problem before, not just in this Congress. I remember the fights over the C-17. Even those were purchased, but the Congress, in three out of the four committees of the Congress, refused to proceed with the purchase of the C-17s. We saw the C-140s ready to be retired, and we had to have a replacement. It was our subcommittee that insisted on going ahead with the C-17s. We see the problem of the cost of maintaining the tankers, of maintaining the C-9s. We call them the DC-9s. Those are being retired now. They average 30 years of age. The 727s, which we call the C-22, average 38 years of age. Think of that, Mr. President. We have gone through three decades without thinking about how we keep planes so they are functional and costs do not get ever-increasing for maintenance. We look at money in a different way than the Armed Services Committee does; I admit that. We look at money as to how we can possibly get what we need without breaking the budget. We have proceeded to lease with that in mind. It is not my judgment that we will increase the cost of flying these missions by leasing the planes, as compared to keeping planes that are in the 30-, 38- and 44-year-old age bracket. Mr. President, I think one comment was made concerning the fact that one company--Boeing--was not awarded one of the contracts for the combat aircraft. That had nothing to do with our decision to try to lease these planes. It is totally immaterial, as far as I am concerned. We weren't even sure whether they would decide to lease the planes. The fact was that we had to find planes, and the planes that were available at that time on the line were the 767s, which could be readily converted to tankers to replace these aging tankers that must be replaced if we are to continue our war against global terrorism. Mr. President, it doesn't please this Senator to have this continued battle with the Armed Services Committee over the question of what is the best way to spend our money to keep our people in the military outfitted with the best possible equipment. But, in my judgment, we are proceeding along the right line. I sort of wonder about the request that GAO do a study on whether or not the Congress was right in passing the law and the President was right in signing the law last year. We are discussing an issue we debated on the Senate floor. We prevailed on the floor, we prevailed in conference, and the President signed the bill. The system is moving forward that was intended to move forward. I seriously question what right anybody has to ask the GAO to study whether Congress made the right decision last year. Congress should be looking at the execution of the laws, not whether the laws represented the best possible solution. I don't have a problem with them looking at the economics of it; I welcome that, provided they look at the cost of maintaining those old planes. They are not going to tell me that the taxpayers are saving money by keeping planes that are as old as the C-9s, C-22s, and tankers that are flying today. Lastly, I remind the Senate that those tankers are still flying, almost nightly, in Afghanistan. Every plane that flies in that theater has to be refueled at least twice a night. We recently talked to the commander of our forces in Europe. We were told that when the AWACS NATO loaned us after 9/11 came to the United States, they flew 19,000 hours in less than 6 months. Now, those, too, are the old 707 bodies and they are aging. The engines are aging, and they are going to have to be replaced because of the heavy duty they got during that period they were on loan here. There are all kinds of problems that have to be solved. We solve them by using money from the operation and maintenance account. We are not authorizing people to buy planes. That is the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. But what happens to the O&M account, as far as I am concerned, is a matter for the Appropriations Committee to determine-- they are consulted--but we have to find some way to make the money fit the need. I think we have done it in this bill. I thank my friend from Hawaii for his courtesy in allowing me to speak ahead of him.

Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine that this research area needs a robust investment to ensure that promising technologies are not only explored, but that the technologies are transitioned to the field and operationally deployed.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield back my time.

Mr. STEVENS. The Chairman of the Subcommittee, and the Senator from California, also a distinguished member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, are correct. In fact, as they both know, the committee report that accompanies this legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to submit semi-annual status reports to the relevant congressional committees.

Mr. STEVENS. I believe that threats to the food supply are very serious and they need to be addressed both in terms of protecting our deployed troops and also in terms of homeland security. We need to find a way to ensure that the food supply for our deployed troops is safe, just as we need to protect America's food supply. I definitely support a research initiative in this area.

Mr. STEVENS. I tell the Senator from New Hampshire that it is also my understanding that the Navy now has the flexibility to reprioritize those Fiscal Year 2003 funds. M13 carrier

Mr. STEVENS. I don't quite understand the request.

Mr. STEVENS. No objection.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.